October Term 2014 · Docket 13-9972
Can officers extend a traffic stop for a dog sniff without new suspicion?
The dispute centers on whether police may prolong a lawful traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff without individualized suspicion.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. O'Connor argued that officers cannot hold drivers for sniffs without individualized suspicion.
Ms. Anders argued that a reasonableness analysis avoids arbitrary results in traffic stops.
Justice Roberts asked if a dog sniff during a ticket-writing process is permissible.
Justice Scalia questioned whether asking for a license after a warning is allowed.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the limits of Fourth Amendment protections during routine traffic stops.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 17-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 21, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 14-16
What each side wants
the side that brought the case seeks a bright-line rule prohibiting extended stops for sniffs without new suspicion.
The government seeks a reasonableness standard allowing discretion during traffic stops.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 17-11
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues officers cannot hold drivers for sniffs after completing the stop's purpose.
The government argues a reasonableness analysis prevents arbitrary results in traffic stops.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 17-11
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if officers can ask questions during a stop for a broken taillight.
Justice Kennedy asked if verifying license plates after writing a ticket is permitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-37
Why it matters
This issue defines the boundary between routine traffic enforcement and invasive searches. It determines how long police can detain drivers without probable cause. It shapes the balance between public safety and individual liberty. It impacts millions of daily interactions between citizens and law enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 17-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 17-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.